Jump to content




25 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Recently, there were discussions in both houses of the National Assembly regarding one issue that members are currently divided upon: conscription and the Army. There was the notion that the Army of New England (ANE) should become professionalized and the current conscription system should be petered out. But this meant for others that the abolishment of conscription would mean the reduction of the Army from over 600,000 to possibly 200,000 or less and there were doubts that the military leadership would approve of such preposition.

But following discussions between members of the federal government and the military leadership, the generals had indicated that they would be “willing to undertake this if it will further New England’s armed forces for the better.” Currently, the military receives approximately $29 billion, about eight percent of New England’s GDP, and proponents of professionalization state that such a course of action can help to reduce the cost of maintaining a 600,000-strong Army and help to make it more “cost-effective.” For instance, a professionalized army can help to streamline the management of military resources in a way that prevents mismanagement that may otherwise occur in a conscription-based Army. It is estimated, as according to various civilian and military, that the allocation of the national budget that goes to the military can be reduced to approximately $20 billion or less as a professionalized army will be able to make more with less.

Furthermore, as supporters of professionalization state, professionalization of the Army is designed above all to further consolidate civilian control of the military by reducing the possibility of a military coup, strengthening the military’s power and organization, improve the use of modern technology and weaponry, to establish a more unified military organization – and overall to provide greater respect for human and civil rights. A professionalized military, according to Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chief of Staffs, “will be more better-trained and disciplined, less politicized, and will be less likely to get involved into internal conflicts that may devolve into internal repression.” Lastly, a professionalized army will be able to provide for an effective deterrent by dissuading military actions by countries that might be inclined to attack, otherwise. After all, would you attack a military force that is more skilled and trained than you?

This issue, still under debate in the National Assembly, has duly been transmitted to the populace for consideration. Citizens of the Republic of New England will be able to provide a direction for the federal government and the military to take by voicing their approval or otherwise in polls and the like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the military should not be professionalized. While it may seem more cost-efficient and better at fighting, they often have lower morale and that means lower fighting strength. The only thing that the professional soldiers are fighting for, is a paycheck. It is very hard to base the paycheck amount on their fighting ability in an actual battle.

Edited by HHAYD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the military should not be professionalized. While it may seem more cost-efficient and better at fighting, they often have lower morale and that means lower fighting strength. The only thing that the professional soldiers are fighting for, is a paycheck. It is very hard to base the paycheck amount on their fighting ability in an actual battle.

Professional army does not mean the soldiers only work for pay, it just means that is their main occupation. In a non-professional army soldiers have other jobs, and the military is more of a militia or in other cases a sort of feudal system built on retainers. While a professional army is paid, its soldiers may be fighting for many different reasons. I would also add that morale would be higher as their focus would be the military and serving their country rather than getting back to their extra-military lives.

As for the main issue...

Yes, and no. You could have a conscript system which requires every person of a particular age (18 for example) for perhapses two or years to serve in the armed forces. Then they move on to other things (at 20). It would still be professional and would lack the uncertainty of a voluntary system. Also if conscription is already normal in your society there isn't any real reason to do away with it as the society is already used to it.

Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Polls have been closed.

According to the polls, approximately 70.59% of the population supported the professionalization of the military, with 29.41% against. On a similar note, 70.59% of the population also supported the abolishment of the current conscription system, with 29.41% against.

What a coincidence, huh?

Imbued with broad support from the population, the proponents of the professionalization plan was able to override the opposition in the National Assembly and muster enough votes to get the bill, named Preposition 4135-0705, passed in both houses of the Assembly. Soon, the bill reached the desk of President John F. Kennedy, who promptly signed it into law.

The Military Professionalization Act implemented a overhaul of the current military system and establishment. It redefined the military’s role and mission and established precedents for the military to be more consistent with its redefined role. Not only was the military to defend New England’s population, lands, and strategic interests within the North American continent, but it was also to adopt a defensive military stature, focusing the military to “undertake defensive measures to repelling hostile invasions” and to utilize force if necessary to safeguard its interests. In addition, the military was to undertake a new role into “protecting the Americas from foreign influence, colonization or any attempts at so, and aggression by any means.” Lastly, New England was to utilize diplomatic relations and agreements and geography to defend itself to the fullest capacity in times of war.

With the implementation of the Military Professionalization Act, it was announced that conscripts will be petered out of military units (regular and commando) and replaced by full-time professionals, starting immediately. This, of course, meant the downsizing of the overall military from 600,000 to less than 300,000. The numbers of regular troops was scheduled to be reduced from 300,000 to 154,000, and the Reserve Army was to be reduced from 150,000 to 55,000; the Navy was reduced from 90,000 personnel to 60,000. The Coast Guard and the Air Force remained unchanged.

Because the 100,000-strong Military-SS remained unchanged, the federal government took steps to further tighten control the institution by stipulating that the Directorate of the Stasi not only needed personal authorization from the President, but also the Joint Chief of Staffs, to mount any major operations.

In addition, the Military Professionalization Act further defined the military’s commitment into defending the nation from external security threats by prohibiting the military from enforcing national laws and resolution in the country (“the military are for fighting and defending, not enforcing laws!”). Military and naval academies have been instructed to train new troops in the new doctrine.

Edited by JEDCJT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...